City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, although the plaintiff attempted to re-characterize claim to avoid PUC jurisdiction, matters within the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction were still “inextricably intertwined” with the claims
• concluding that although the plaintiff's claims alleged unfair trade practices described in the CCPA, the claims involved the specific and exclusive ratemaking jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, and thus the plaintiff could not bring his CCPA claims
• “Determining whether defendants comply with the PUC requirements and fashioning a remedy for any violation is within the PUC’s authority.”
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument “that exhaustion should not be required because the [Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”
• consider the facts alleged and the relief requested to determine the substance of the claim and whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction
• party could not “avoid implicating the ratemaking jurisdiction of the [Public Utilities Commission] by recharacterizing its claims on appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).